Advertisement

Rheumatology International

, Volume 25, Issue 3, pp 215–219 | Cite as

Proposal for a sonographic classification of target joints in rheumatoid arthritis

  • Klaus LerchEmail author
  • Nicola Borisch
  • Christian Paetzel
  • Joachim Grifka
  • Wolfgang Hartung
Original Article

Abstract

Objective

The purpose of this study was to classify sonographically the joint damage of target joints in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

Methods

During a 3-year cross-sectional study, standardized arthrosonography of symptomatic target joints was performed in patients with RA. According to those findings, a classification with progressive deterioration of joint alteration in RA was created that grades visible morphological changes of the joint components. Using elbow joints as a subgroup, inter- and intraobserver reliability was calculated.

Results

Examined and included in this study were 1211 joints of 425 patients with RA. The mean disease activity score was 5.2 (range 0.75–7.79). Sonographically visible changes could be classified and divided into six stages. A standardized sonographic evaluation system was developed. In reference to the elbow joint, overall percentages for intra- and interobserver reliability of sonography were 90.8% and 88.8%, respectively.

Conclusion

Sonography is a valuable tool for assessing and classifying joint alteration in RA. Particularly in early stages of joint affection, ultrasound is superior to X-ray in detecting soft tissue changes and minor erosions.

Keywords

Classification Diagnostic criteria Rheumatoid arthritis Sonography Ultrasound 

References

  1. 1.
    Muller-Ladner U, Gay RE, Gay S (1998) Molecular biology of cartilage and bone destruction. Curr Opin Rheumatol 10:212–219PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ostergaard M, Stolenburg M, Lovgreen-Nielsen P, Volck B, Jensen CH, Lorenzen IB (1997) Magnetic resonance imaging determined synovial membrane and joint effusion volumes in rheumatoid arthritis and osteoarthritis. Arthritis Rheum 40:1856–1867PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    McGonagle D, Conaghan PC (1999) Magnetic resonance imaging in rheumatology. Topical Reviews in Arthritis and Research Campaign 17:1–6Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Sharp JT (1995) Assessment of radiographic abnormalities in rheumatoid arthritis: what have we accomplished and where should we go from here? J Rheumatol 22:1787–1791PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Wakefield RJ, Gibbon WW, Conaghan PG, O’Connor P, McGonagle D, Pease C, Green MJ, Veale DJ, Isaacs JD, Emery P (2000) The value of sonography in the detection of bone erosions in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: a comparative study with conventional radiography. Arthritis Rheum 43:2762–2770CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Backhaus M, Kamradt T, Sandrock D, Loreck D, Fritz J, Wolf J, Raber H, Hamm B, Burmester G-R, Bollow M (1999) A comprehensive approach comparing conventional radiography, scintigraphy, ultrasound, and contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging. Arthritis Rheum 42:1232–1245PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Arnett FC, Edworthy S, Bloch DA, McShane DJ, Fries JF, Cooper NS (1988) The American Rheumatism Association 1987 revised criteria for the classification of rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheum 31:315–324PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Prevoo ML, van’t Hof MA, Kuper HH (1995) Modified disease activity scores that include twenty-eight joint counts. Development and validation in a prospective longitudinal study of patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheum 38:44–48PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Van der Heijde DM, van’t Hof M, van Riel PL, van de Putte LB (1993) Development of a disease activity score based on judgment in clinical practice by rheumatologists. J Rheumatol 20:579–581PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Larsen A, Dale K, Eek M (1977) Radiographic evaluation of rheumatoid arthritis and related conditions by standard reference films. Acta Radiol 18:481–491Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Schmidt WA (2001) Value of sonography in diagnosis of rheumatoid arthritis. Lancet 357:1056–1057PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Grassi W, Filippucci E, Farina A, Salaffi F, Cervini C (2001) Ultrasonography in the evaluation of bone erosions. Ann Rheum Dis 60:98–103PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Alasaarela E, Suramo I, Tervonen O, Lahde S, Takalo R, Hakala M (1998) Evaluation of humeral head erosions in rheumatoid arthritis: a comparison of sonography, magnetic resonance, computerised tomography and plain radiography. Br J Rheumatol 37:1152–1156PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hau M, Schultz H, Tony H-P, Keberle M, Jahns R, Haerten R, Jenett M (1999) Evaluation of pannus and vascularization of the metacarpophalangeal and proximal interphalangeal joints in rheumatoid arthritis by high-resolution ultrasound (multidimensional linear array). Arthritis Rheum 42:2303–2308CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Stone M, Bergin D, Whelan B, Maher M, Murray J, McCarthy C (2001) Power Doppler ultrasound assessment of rheumatoid hand synovitis. J Rheumatol 28:1979–1982PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Klauser A, Frauscher F, Schirmer M, Halpern E, Pallwein L, Herold M, Helweg G, Zur Nedden D (2002) The value of contrast-enhanced color Doppler ultrasound in the detection of vascularization of finger joints in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheum 46:647–653CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Klaus Lerch
    • 1
    Email author
  • Nicola Borisch
    • 1
  • Christian Paetzel
    • 2
  • Joachim Grifka
    • 1
  • Wolfgang Hartung
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Orthopedic SurgeryUniversity of RegensburgBad AbbachGermany
  2. 2.Department of RadiologyUniversity of RegensburgRegensburgGermany
  3. 3.Department of Rheumatology, Division of Internal MedicineBavarian Rheumatologic and Orthopedic CenterBad AbbachGermany

Personalised recommendations